Though Steve Jobs said he "cracked" the secret to building an easy-to-use television set, a true Apple HDTV reportedly remains held up by content providers, who are reluctant to allow Apple to offer subscription-based plans to customers.

Citing checks with industry and supply chain sources, analyst Shaw Wu with Sterne Agee said there's a belief that Jobs was "very excited" about the prospect of Apple entering the television market. That same enthusiasm was expressed by Jobs to his biographer, when he said that Apple was working on a TV set with "the simplest user interface you could imagine."

While Jobs felt he had solved the issue of confusing user interfaces with TVs, Wu said one problem Apple has yet to resolve are licensing deals with content providers. Those terms, which have yet to be ironed out, are said to be the main roadblock preventing Apple from selling an HDTV.

Wu said sources have told him that Apple "would love" to allow users to choose customized programming for a monthly subscription fee. With this plan, users could choose whatever channels or shows they wanted to subscribe to, offering an "a la carte" option instead of bundles with dozens of channels as currently provided by cable operators.

As far back as 2009, Apple was said to have pitched a $30-per-month iTunes subscription plan to content providers. But that concept never gained any traction.

Another content-related obstacle for Apple is live television. Wu said that Apple could "bypass" this by integrating its TV with existing cable or satellite providers, but he thinks Apple could better differentiate its product if it were able to offer live programming over the Internet.

But as more users look to "cut the cord" and end their cable or satellite TV service, Wu believes content providers may, ironically, need to turn to Apple to bring back subscribers. He compared it to how music publishers turned to Apple and iTunes in the face of rising piracy.

Still, with so much depending on licensing deals for content, he believes that Apple has a lot of work ahead of it before it can bring a full-fledged television set to market.

"Because of the high dependence on content providers," he said, "we believe exact timing of a 'real' Apple TV shipping is difficult to pinpoint."

Finally, a sane article in this TV business, but it doesn't go far enough. There are still going to be plenty of people who are perfectly happy with the current HDTV they have (whether they recently bought it or brand loyalty) so I'm wondering why these content deals wouldnt be for the current AppleTV as well, a far more mass market device than a $1000+ TV.

I think the bigger worry to me would be the local cable companies who also control internet service to the home. If I cancel my TV with Comcast, who's to stop them from lowering my monthly bandwidth allowance, only offering a slower speed, and charging more for the "pleasure" of it?

Even more important than deals with the content providers are the ISPs. Internet TV will be at the mercy of the ISPs who will tax away whatever profits Apple might expect from selling TVs and content. To eliminate this long term threat, I don't see any other option than for Apple to build/buy its own nationwide transmission network. What does 82 billion net of taxes buy you?

I think the bigger worry to me would be the local cable companies who also control internet service to the home. If I cancel my TV with Comcast, who's to stop them from lowering my monthly bandwidth allowance, only offering a slower speed, and charging more for the "pleasure" of it?

You are correct sir. It all comes down to everyone grabbing for a piece of the pie. I just hope they don't knock the pie off the table and nobody gets any.

Although it goes against what Apple is trying to do and has done with the music industry, they could work deals out with the cable / isp companies making tv more akin to the cell phone industry. This would allow a more expensive Apple television to be subsidized by the cable/isp companies, given we are really talking about a unit that is not a television as we know it today, nor is it really an internet tv - it's everything wrapped into one.

An issue that won't easily be solved, but is probably something that Apple alone could force, is the costs that cable operators have to pay to content providers and how they're so tied together right now. If content was more like music, where you pay for just the content you want, prices would probably be much more affordable, but you would then be limited to just what you are paying for.

It makes sense, in a way - you could buy ala carte and get just what you want, or you could purchase a plan that includes a more broad offering - just like you do with the cell phone companies.

If they're waiting for the cable companies to agree to ala carte pricing, everyone might as well forget it. The cable companies WANT to charge me for 700 channels when I only watch 10. And even if they'd agree to let me choose only 10 channels, the cost per channel would be 70 times as high - so they'd make the same amount of money.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Although it goes against what Apple is trying to do and has done with the music industry, they could work deals out with the cable / isp companies making tv more akin to the cell phone industry. This would allow a more expensive Apple television to be subsidized by the cable/isp companies, given we are really talking about a unit that is not a television as we know it today, nor is it really an internet tv - it's everything wrapped into one.

An issue that won't easily be solved, but is probably something that Apple alone could force, is the costs that cable operators have to pay to content providers and how they're so tied together right now. If content was more like music, where you pay for just the content you want, prices would probably be much more affordable, but you would then be limited to just what you are paying for.

It makes sense, in a way - you could buy ala carte and get just what you want, or you could purchase a plan that includes a more broad offering - just like you do with the cell phone companies.

It's interesting to think outside the (cable)box. But the industries are vastly different. In most cases, we only need one carrier, and choose it based on regional coverage, choice of phones and the pricing plans available. Ergo, Apple was able to start the iPhone history with a single carrier on board. In TV delivery, there are many players involved - cable company, TV studios, movie studios, etc. You need more than one party on board to have a compelling solution. For example, even if Disney is on board, they couldn't very much offer the Disney channel without agreement from Comcast, etc.

The TV/movie business is like the American political system. Everyone wants change but, in bumping into each other constantly, ends up staying in status quo.

While Jobs felt he had solved the issue of confusing user interfaces with TVs, Wu said one problem Apple has yet to resolve are licensing deals with content providers. Those terms, which have yet to be ironed out, are said to be the main roadblock preventing Apple from selling an HDTV.

These guys. If they give Apple most of their profits, they MIGHT survive. If not, then not.

A true 4G network has to meet a 1Gbit/s download speed for stationary receivers. That is more than enough bandwidth to feed a home internet feed for TV. It seems to me that could be a good usage of the $80 billion and would put them a huge step ahead of any of their competition in the serving of media over IP since all others (except possibly Google) would be at the mercy of the existing ISPs, who by the way all have a vested interest in making sure that cable stays just the way it is.

Also, Google is another reason that they need to seriously consider this, because Google is basically moving down this path themselves as they fund the building out of high speed fiber networks.

A true 4G network has to meet a 1Gbit/s download speed for stationary receivers. That is more than enough bandwidth to feed a home internet feed for TV. It seems to me that could be a good usage of the $80 billion and would put them a huge step ahead of any of their competition in the serving of media over IP since all others (except possibly Google) would be at the mercy of the existing ISPs, who by the way all have a vested interest in making sure that cable stays just the way it is.

Also, Google is another reason that they need to seriously consider this, because Google is basically moving down this path themselves as they fund the building out of high speed fiber networks.

To upend everything they will certainly need a network of their own which means they have to purchase spectrum across the world or be held hostage by the gatekeepers with the existing licenses. Also, many existing networks have relationships with producers for the production of exclusive content.

Regulators would never let them buy all 5 major broad cast networks, and the same goes for major cable networks carrying that exclusive broadcast content. Therefore your LTE advanced-based system would have to petition the government for fair license to broadcast signals that are under the purview of the FCC.

I'd love to see it though. It would put them in a strong position when bargaining for content.

Finally, a sane article in this TV business, but it doesn't go far enough. There are still going to be plenty of people who are perfectly happy with the current HDTV they have (whether they recently bought it or brand loyalty) so I'm wondering why these content deals wouldnt be for the current AppleTV as well, a far more mass market device than a $1000+ TV.

The bottom line is that nothing will become cheaper. Whatever the business model, whatever the method of program distribution, the end user will pay pretty much the same. What we are talking about is a better 'experience' and a better way of selecting content.

A true 4G network has to meet a 1Gbit/s download speed for stationary receivers. That is more than enough bandwidth to feed a home internet feed for TV. It seems to me that could be a good usage of the $80 billion and would put them a huge step ahead of any of their competition in the serving of media over IP since all others (except possibly Google) would be at the mercy of the existing ISPs, who by the way all have a vested interest in making sure that cable stays just the way it is.

Also, Google is another reason that they need to seriously consider this, because Google is basically moving down this path themselves as they fund the building out of high speed fiber networks.

Lightsquared is selling wholesale access to their upcoming LTE network. so far they have sold billions of $$$ worth of bandwidth.

$85B in cash will make these negotiations go much easier. Netflix doesn't have this luxury. Apple doesn't need to make money on the content as long as they get to sell $2000 TVs.

Your cable provider will NOT be able to aggressively retaliate against subscribers for cutting the cord and choosing an over-the-top solution like iTunes. Yes, they will probably have to increase the average cost of broadband access since they're losing the content revenue, but it will only be a moderate increase. The FCC is all over them.

Alternatively, 4G makes things a lot more interesting. 4G is plenty fast for broadband access at the home. Comcast/Time-Warner/Cox will be forced to stay competitive with Verizon/ATT/Sprint 4G a viable alternative

I think the issue really is the content guys more than the pipe guys. Comcast will get its money one way or another.

The only thing that enabled Steve Jobs to pry the heads of the music guys out of their a$$es was rampant piracy. The video content guys have not yet experienced piracy on the same scale. If you want to help change the TV business, my advice is to cancel your cable subscription and fire up your bit torrent client.

If they're waiting for the cable companies to agree to ala carte pricing, everyone might as well forget it. The cable companies WANT to charge me for 700 channels when I only watch 10. And even if they'd agree to let me choose only 10 channels, the cost per channel would be 70 times as high - so they'd make the same amount of money.

Yup, you nailed it. The only thing I can see is if apple starts their own channel (they have plenty of cash). In other words, buy up some popular shows from cable channels, or sponsor up and coming shows to get the ball rolling.

Than let the networks come in and be able to show their shows on apple TV as well. They all will come just like with music.

Now the cable charges you more than for internet alone, but less than internet + TV, gives you unlimited data cap and calls it the Apple TV package.

With apple TV you can watch shows in any language, from any country that wishes to give a certain cut to apple for letting them on. Anything from amateur stuff to high end expensive stuff.

This is clearly the future, the only question is who will take us there. Apple seems like the one to do this.

Lack of content is what killed GoogleTV. In typically Google fashion, they failed to work out agreements with the content providers/owners. Maybe after NetFlix's recent stock 'adjustment' Apple could buy them? NFLX (Nasdaq) is down 35% today and has a market cap of $4B. In my opinion, Content IS King. The thing that made the iPod so appealing is the ability to purchase content directly from the iTunes Store and have it instantly loaded onto the device. Could this model work for TV? An improved AppleTV (1080p, better UI, etc.) would be a 'no brainer' and this would buy them more time to negotiate distribution agreement with the major content providers. Without such agreements, an Apple HDTV set, no matter how elegant is doomed to be a market failure...

I think the issue really is the content guys more than the pipe guys. Comcast will get its money one way or another.

The only thing that enabled Steve Jobs to pry the heads of the music guys out of their a$$es was rampant piracy. The video content guys have not yet experienced piracy on the same scale. If you want to help change the TV business, my advice is to cancel your cable subscription and fire up your bit torrent client.

$85B in cash will make these negotiations go much easier. Netflix doesn't have this luxury. Apple doesn't need to make money on the content as long as they get to sell $2000 TVs.

Your cable provider will NOT be able to aggressively retaliate against subscribers for cutting the cord and choosing an over-the-top solution like iTunes. Yes, they will probably have to increase the average cost of broadband access since they're losing the content revenue, but it will only be a moderate increase. The FCC is all over them.

Alternatively, 4G makes things a lot more interesting. 4G is plenty fast for broadband access at the home. Comcast/Time-Warner/Cox will be forced to stay competitive with Verizon/ATT/Sprint 4G a viable alternative

wouldn't surprise me if the cable companies want to get rid of the TV business. the reason to sell TV services is to pay for the wires.

time warner charges me $130 or so for cable, unlimited internet and phone. plus DVR. $30 of that goes to the content people to pay for the rights to transmit the shows. the phone part is essentially free money since that takes almost no bandwidth.

what if i only paid $50 for internet and phone but they didn't have to pay the content people? they might actually keep more cash in the end

Hollywood is a fucked up place. I am pretty sure suits sit around their big mahogany desks in their Aeron chairs to figure out ways to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to consume their content.

If they provide it, I will pay. As it is, however, they don't provide it, so I BitTorrent.

I am the typical demographic: professional husband and father with nary a second in the day to brush my teeth, let alone go to the movies. I would kill to be able to pay, let's say, $20 to watch the latest blockbuster in the privacy of my home. Why do I need to go to the theaters to give you my money? I'll give it to you from the comfort of my couch. But you won't let me!

And guess what? After a week or so, I will have forgotten about your stupid movie. And I will especially overlook it when it finally comes out on Blu-Ray because it's no longer a blockbuster. And there you go: You have just devised an ingenious method to not accept my money.

Apple should buy Verizon and NBC. Make 4G LTE unlimited for 30$ and add it to all their products then make NBC content available a la cart. AT&T & the other content creators will have to compete or die....

all we need is ISPs nothing else for all services, voice, data, tv, whatever. c'mon, it's 21st century, everything is data these days we don't need a company for phone, we don't need a company for tv and a company which sells us internet connection. we just need one internet access provider, that's it.

Hollywood is a fucked up place. I am pretty sure suits sit around their big mahogany desks in their Aeron chairs to figure out ways to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to consume their content.

If they provide it, I will pay. As it is, however, they don't provide it, so I BitTorrent.

I am the typical demographic: professional husband and father with nary a second in the day to brush my teeth, let alone go to the movies. I would kill to be able to pay, let's say, $20 to watch the latest blockbuster in the privacy of my home. Why do I need to go to the theaters to give you my money? I'll give it to you from the comfort of my couch. But you won't let me!

And guess what? After a week or so, I will have forgotten about your stupid movie. And I will especially overlook it when it finally comes out on Blu-Ray because it's no longer a blockbuster. And there you go: You have just devised an ingenious method to not accept my money.

And in comes BitTorrent. And a big Fuck You to your mesozoic ways.

It's always nice to see someone write a big long explanation of why they feel it's okay to steal something they didn't pay for. Let's see, the standard method to see a first-run movie is and has been for decades to go see it at a movie theater. The movie execs didn't really have to spend much time thinking that up since it's been like that since movies first started being made.

You're the typical demographic? Really? Did you do a survey? There's more to going to the movies than just seeing the movie. There's the size of the screen and the sound system which I know I can't match at home.

So it's a stupid movie? Then why did you want to go see it in the first place? I kind of only want to go see movies that look good. But hey, I'm not the typical demographic I guess.

Wouldn't it make sense for Apple to continue producing Apple TVs alongside any HDTV? I say this because any content deals could always be signed with respect to the Apple TV and then adding a monitor to that wouldn't change anything to the contracts. It seems like there's nothing holding up Apple's TV initiative, they are already in the living room. I do understand that 'another' box to plug in is bad for a number of reasons.

Apple revolutionized the music industry, but not until the record labels were on their knees from rampant MP3 ripping and file sharing. The same thing is happening in publishing now, with Apple and Amazon on the verge of replacing paper media with digital.

It'll take a long time before we'll be telling Siri + iCloud + iTunes to show us our favorite movies and TV shows. But it'll happen eventually. As soon as the studios realize that it's inevitable.

The problem has never been UI. It's been content. If it was just UI, the tv makers could have fixed it (albeit less elegantly), and Apple TV and Google TV would have become ubiquitous by now. They haven't because there's not enough content to support them. Apple TV is nice and cheap for netflix and iTunes. But it's not going to replace a cable box for most people. Google TV took a real shot at changing the UX of watching TV. The networks felt so threatened they cut-off content.

And then there's the issue of bandwith if you go to a full IPTV solution. The networks may just slap on restritctive bandwith caps if you can get TV channels through iTunes. Up here in Canada, the major ISPs nearly cut their monthly bandwith caps in half (for the same price) when Netflix arrived.

I think the issue really is the content guys more than the pipe guys. Comcast will get its money one way or another.

The only thing that enabled Steve Jobs to pry the heads of the music guys out of their a$$es was rampant piracy. The video content guys have not yet experienced piracy on the same scale. If you want to help change the TV business, my advice is to cancel your cable subscription and fire up your bit torrent client.

Nah, firing up BT won't really change the television content market.

The reason? Live sporting events. That's where the big bucks are and where the key content deals reside.

The music and book industries are relatively simple, with few major players. Even the movie industry is fairly straightforward which is why you can rent/stream movies via iTunes/Netflix/whoever.

It's when you get into sports that the content ownership situation gets far more complicated. Something like NCAA football is a morass of athletic conferences, television networks, cable operators, satellite companies, etc. combined with local broadcasters, blackouts, exclusivity, etc.

It's one thing to watch NCIS online. It's something totally different to watch SEC football online.

If you don't address live sporting events, you are not facing the biggest pile of money in the television business.

The reason? Live sporting events. That's where the big bucks are and where the key content deals reside.

The music and book industries are relatively simple, with few major players. Even the movie industry is fairly straightforward which is why you can rent/stream movies via iTunes/Netflix/whoever.

It's when you get into sports that the content ownership situation gets far more complicated. Something like NCAA football is a morass of athletic conferences, television networks, cable operators, satellite companies, etc. combined with local broadcasters, blackouts, exclusivity, etc.

It's one thing to watch NCIS online. It's something totally different to watch SEC football online.

If you don't address live sporting events, you are not facing the biggest pile of money in the television business.

i watched all the baseball games i was interested in on my MLB.com subscription via my Apple TV 2....

It's always nice to see someone write a big long explanation of why they feel it's okay to steal something they didn't pay for. Let's see, the standard method to see a first-run movie is and has been for decades to go see it at a movie theater. The movie execs didn't really have to spend much time thinking that up since it's been like that since movies first started being made.

You're the typical demographic? Really? Did you do a survey? There's more to going to the movies than just seeing the movie. There's the size of the screen and the sound system which I know I can't match at home.

So it's a stupid movie? Then why did you want to go see it in the first place? I kind of only want to go see movies that look good. But hey, I'm not the typical demographic I guess.

i went to a movie for the first time in years a few months back. took my son to see cars 2. first there are the pre-previews you have to sit through or not get a good seat

then there was 30 minutes of previews and other ads. my 4 year old was sick of it before the real movie came on. same on adult movies. and this costs $10 or more per person plus overpriced junk food

Number one rule around here should be, don't relply to anything fromComradeJoe because, as he says, he gets paid by his original post and by the number of replies that he manages to hook.

No, no, no.

That's not how it works. Google pays me over $100,000.00 per year just to spend a few minutes a day on AI. Kind of like a retainer. Some posters net me a bonus if they respond.

Posts from you do nothing to put money into my pocket.

But there is one thing you might be interested in - I happen to have the exclusive right to install tollbooths on the Brooklyn Bridge. I've been looking for a Buyer. Any interest? If not, I have some great building lots in the Everglades, right next to the National Park. Can you imagine how much you could make if you controlled a big block of them? Cheap?

Oh - and if you're interested, my Master is always looking for good employees. Go to http://shills.google.com\\ComradeJoe.html for information on how you can buy into this exciting opportunity. I'll give you a great deal!

The reason? Live sporting events. That's where the big bucks are and where the key content deals reside.

The music and book industries are relatively simple, with few major players. Even the movie industry is fairly straightforward which is why you can rent/stream movies via iTunes/Netflix/whoever.

It's when you get into sports that the content ownership situation gets far more complicated. Something like NCAA football is a morass of athletic conferences, television networks, cable operators, satellite companies, etc. combined with local broadcasters, blackouts, exclusivity, etc.

It's one thing to watch NCIS online. It's something totally different to watch SEC football online.

If you don't address live sporting events, you are not facing the biggest pile of money in the television business.

apple has experimented with MLB subs on their devices. IP's are geographic so it's not a big deal to put restrictions in place.

i think apple will just release a regular TV with a few HDMI ports and itunes built in with support for all current apps via air mirror. probably add some other features. ipad wasn't anything out of this world, just the new form factor enabled a lot of new things. it's still a big ipod touch. same with apple TV.

samsung and others are putting apps into TV's and the experience is horrific. apple will make it better, not invent anything new

very few people will buy these if they don't have HDMI for their x-boxes, blu ray and other boxes

Even more important than deals with the content providers are the ISPs. Internet TV will be at the mercy of the ISPs who will tax away whatever profits Apple might expect from selling TVs and content. To eliminate this long term threat, I don't see any other option than for Apple to build/buy its own nationwide transmission network. What does 82 billion net of taxes buy you?

It can buy the big three: Comcast, Time Warner and XX (I forget the name) with $10s of billions left over after they sell off the extraneous bits (AOL, etc).

Apple likely does not want to go through the AT&T experience again. When it comes to the pipe, Apple will want to be in control this time.